From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: broonie@opensource.wolfsonmicro.com (Mark Brown) Date: Thu, 29 Mar 2012 15:54:37 +0100 Subject: [PATCH] ARM: pxa: fix build failure for regulator consumer in em-x270.c In-Reply-To: <4F7471A0.6070208@compulab.co.il> References: <1331244366-6147-1-git-send-email-paul.gortmaker@windriver.com> <4F732C97.2030804@compulab.co.il> <20120328152743.GW3232@opensource.wolfsonmicro.com> <4F73356D.5080401@windriver.com> <20120328161305.GZ3232@opensource.wolfsonmicro.com> <4F73437B.6070806@windriver.com> <4F7471A0.6070208@compulab.co.il> Message-ID: <20120329145436.GS3668@opensource.wolfsonmicro.com> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org On Thu, Mar 29, 2012 at 04:28:48PM +0200, Igor Grinberg wrote: > On 03/28/12 18:59, Paul Gortmaker wrote: > >>> static struct platform_device em_x270_gps_userspace_consumer = { > >>> .name = "reg-userspace-consumer", > >>> .id = 0, > >>> static struct platform_device em_x270_gprs_userspace_consumer = { > >>> .name = "reg-userspace-consumer", > >>> .id = 1, > > -REGULATOR_CONSUMER(ldo19, "reg-userspace-consumer", "vcc gprs"); > > +REGULATOR_CONSUMER(ldo19, "reg-userspace-consumer.1", "vcc gprs"); > Well, I thought of this solution, but I don't like it, as it makes > the whole thing very fragile and sensitive to the reg-userspace-consumer > platform device registration order and count, isn't it? > (That's why I proposed to use NULL...). No the platform device numbering should be totally stable for a given board unless someone deliberately sets out to renumber them - the .ids are explicitly assigned by the board when it registers the device. > So, Mark, how do you think the above issues can be handled without > putting NULL into the dev_name? It shouldn't be a problem I think. -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 836 bytes Desc: Digital signature URL: